Don't apologize. Remember there was a protest/riot that took place earlier in Egypt. The Obama One said he knew it was the video, so don't you
think he would suggest to secure all our embassies in the region, knowing there was an evil video out that was inciting riots? Oh it was the
anniversary of 9/11 too. I guess that means nothing to him though.

Sept. 11: The Attack 2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the
consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official
would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all
outside.”) 3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.) Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at
the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the
Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the
compound.” About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An
administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only
from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from
unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing.
The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.) About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing
into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people
inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.” Between 4:15
p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead. About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main
building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.” About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel …
regain the main building and they were able to secure it.” Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in
the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were
wounded during that ongoing attack.” 6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and
other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the
email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.) About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control
of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and
was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel
at the Benghazi airport.” About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in
an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

The guys is a lazy boob. He doesn't meet with his own committees because it's too much work or, or, he has his own agenda and no matter what the
committee advises, he's doing what he wants. So in the end, he doesn't want to play the game and waste in a meeting, knowing he is doing what he
wants and everyone be damned. This guy is a disgrace.

I hold anyone who voted for accountable and when TSHTF I will point at you and let you know you caused this. I will do it in the streets and in front
of your house and shame you!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by xedocodex
When you literally are repeating what Fox News hosts/contributors are saying...it's kind of hard not to comment on it....it's hilarious.

When you whine unendingly when Obama is exposed as an incompetent boob, you are repeating what the MSNBC partisan hacks are saying .. it's
hilarious.

Kind of blows your BS out of the water.

You buy into the bull about him SUPPOSEDLY reading a bulleted piece of paper each day?? Obviously he didn't ... and a piece of paper isn't the same
as meeting with security officials and getting face-to-face indepth information about what is happening on the planet. Obviously the little pieces of
paper that he was SUPPOSEDLY reading didn't get the job done, or he would have understood the situation in that part of the world and our people
might not be dead.

He needs to get off the freak'n golf course and to the job. But then again .. YOU said he was doing the best he could. So it looks like he isn't
capable of doing much else other than golf ...

Seriously, you guys need a productive hobby...irrational hate is not a healty past time.

Seriously, you need to stop defending the indefendable ... irrational LUV for Obama is not a healthy past time.

President Obama refused to take any action to retrieve or destroy a high-tech American drone that went down over Iranian airspace.
This aircraft will ultimately wind up in the hands of those who hate us, who can and will reverse engineer its sophisticated technology, and remove a
long-held advantage that we have had over our enemies.
President Obama was unwilling to do anything to keep this technology from falling into the wrong hands
If he is not performing his job than he is negligent! His flagrant defiance of Congress is something that needs to be addressed

Originally posted by madenusa
President Obama refused to take any action to retrieve or destroy a high-tech American drone that went down over Iranian airspace.

So exactly what did you want him to do? Bomb Iran, or invade Iran and take it back....

Good point. I propose we start installing micro-bombs in our drone fuselage so that if it goes down, it simply self-destructs but causes next to no
collateral damage. This avoids any future incidents unless someone is standing within 10 feet of the crashed drone upon detonation.

Bias isn't against the T&C but I do tend to ignore anyone who stinks of it either way.

Anyway, the meat of the subject: This is the conservative's wet-dream. The idea they are going to get some new Watergate and just get Obama. It's
not going to work.

The whole thing stinks of blowback. Steven's was running guns into Libya for the rebels and this is why he was made ambassador. He was then accused
of running guns into Syria through Turkey for the rebels. The day he died mere hours before he was killed he met with a Turkish military official who
is implicated in supporting the Rebels. What does this look like?

You guys want to keep making it about some Obama gotcha game. You aren't going to get him because he probably didn't make that call. If the CIA was
running guns into Syria they were doing it without congressional approval. You really think they are going to sell themselves out? You'll never get
your answers, the CIA refuses to answer the questions for the most part. It's why during the Senate hearings people were screeching "point of
order" all through the session. There was far too much classified information to discuss it openly.

You'll have a conspiracy for the next four years though even if it isn't going to avail you anything.

Originally posted by paradox4
Here's a serious response that I don't believe you can say is biased:

Could Obama have "let this happen" as an excuse to accomplish whatever his political agenda is? Military action or otherwise.

Well yes, he could have if Bush and the rest of the government "let" the original 9/11 happen to accomplish his.

If I'm not mistaken, Bush was Republican, Obama is a Democrat. The truth is unbiased.

So what really happened? I'm not sure, but I've seen several biased responses on here, and I thought that was against the ATS terms of use?

You're reading into it what you want. No one here has defended Bush, and to remind you, Bush is no longer president and we're into this
president's second term. So when does the conversation shift from GWB to the president we have now had in office for more than four years?

Bias isn't against the T&C but I do tend to ignore anyone who stinks of it either way.

Anyway, the meat of the subject: This is the conservative's wet-dream. The idea they are going to get some new Watergate and just get Obama. It's
not going to work.

The whole thing stinks of blowback. Steven's was running guns into Libya for the rebels and this is why he was made ambassador. He was then accused
of running guns into Syria through Turkey for the rebels. The day he died mere hours before he was killed he met with a Turkish military official who
is implicated in supporting the Rebels. What does this look like?

You guys want to keep making it about some Obama gotcha game. You aren't going to get him because he probably didn't make that call. If the CIA was
running guns into Syria they were doing it without congressional approval. You really think they are going to sell themselves out? You'll never get
your answers, the CIA refuses to answer the questions for the most part. It's why during the Senate hearings people were screeching "point of
order" all through the session. There was far too much classified information to discuss it openly.

You'll have a conspiracy for the next four years though even if it isn't going to avail you anything.

Well the only reason you are correct is because the media is complicit as well. If they pushed it, the worm would turn, but they won't because Obama
is their boy.

The media? Of please. Obama isn't their boy. The media is complicit to government, it doesn't matter who happens to be in government. They will do
their bidding as they want to maintain access. That is how the game is played. If it was the GOP in the white house it would be the same.

I really don't care. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just call it like I see it.

Originally posted by antonia
Steven's was running guns into Libya for the rebels and this is why he was made ambassador. He was then accused of running guns into Syria through
Turkey for the rebels. The day he died mere hours before he was killed he met with a Turkish military official who is implicated in supporting the
Rebels. What does this look like?

You will need back that up with some kind of reliable source,
otherwise thats sheer conjecture, and totally off base...being just your opinion.

The media? Of please. Obama isn't their boy. The media is complicit to government, it doesn't matter who happens to be in government. They will do
their bidding as they want to maintain access. That is how the game is played. If it was the GOP in the white house it would be the same.
I really don't care. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just call it like I see it.

with all due respect you are totally, totally wrong. the media establishment is little more than the PR department of the Democrat party. Everything
Pres Bush did was vilified and dismissed; Obama is never criticized. This episode is the best example yet of the massive bias that pervades the media
establishment. We will see this matter barely mentioned in the ME over the next few days.

You will need back that up with some kind of reliable source,
otherwise thats sheer conjecture, and totally off base...being just your opinion.

Lets see ....please present your "evidence" ?

edit on 8-2-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

And your opinion isn't? It's my opinion. I find you demands rather laughable. Do you think of yourself so highly that you believe I would be somehow
wounded by what you think of me? I'll regale you though. It is truly pointless though. www.foxnews.com...

From your much loved Fox News.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and
escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time. Read more:
www.foxnews.com...

with all due respect you are totally, totally wrong. the media establishment is little more than the PR department of the Democrat party. Everything
Pres Bush did was vilified and dismissed; Obama is never criticized. This episode is the best example yet of the massive bias that pervades the media
establishment. We will see this matter barely mentioned in the ME over the next few days.

As I'm not caught up in party politics I have a very different point of view of the media. You continue in that vein though if it makes you feel
better.

This sort of NPD behaviour is expected from progs,they seldom look after the help.
What did I want from him.......to secure a place for ambassadorial staff or not put them in a war zone so they die would work for me.
Then, there would be an extraction plan,in case said ambassador had to leave the afore mentioned war zone prior to sending them there. We have been
doing it without a single loss for 30 years until this mess.
And finally perhaps have the modicum of functional intelligence to assign someone with the ability to actually lead people as the office of secretary
of state requires leadership. Even if you do hate the military.You still have to keep track of your on going operations.
Not give a job to a political rival to shut her up that had enough presige for her inflated worth by raving hordes of liberals everywhere.
I guess that covers it.I don't care about ANY prior failures by ANY OTHER PRESIDENT there is no place in this debate for that deflection.
I'm talking of the here and now.
She burns because she took responsability if you want to keep her then Barry goes down for it.

The media? Of please. Obama isn't their boy. The media is complicit to government, it doesn't matter who happens to be in government. They will do
their bidding as they want to maintain access. That is how the game is played. If it was the GOP in the white house it would be the same.
I really don't care. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just call it like I see it.

with all due respect you are totally, totally wrong. the media establishment is little more than the PR department of the Democrat party. Everything
Pres Bush did was vilified and dismissed; Obama is never criticized. This episode is the best example yet of the massive bias that pervades the media
establishment. We will see this matter barely mentioned in the ME over the next few days.

That's Solid Gold BS.Bush had a full free ride with the MSM after 911..Do you remember that? I do...The media kissed the Bush admins ass..

with all due respect you are totally, totally wrong. the media establishment is little more than the PR department of the Democrat party. Everything
Pres Bush did was vilified and dismissed; Obama is never criticized. This episode is the best example yet of the massive bias that pervades the media
establishment. We will see this matter barely mentioned in the ME over the next few days.

As I'm not caught up in party politics I have a very different point of view of the media. You continue in that vein though if it makes you feel
better.

you don't have to be political to be aware of the massive bias in today's media. if the Media Establishment were blindly pro-gummint (I think
that's your thesis) it would not have trashed Bush so much.
Do you work for the DNC? or are you a Soros puppet? no halfway rational intelligent person can think today's media is non-partisan and neutral.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.